The tension between instinctive decision-making and calculated strategy has long been a cornerstone of leadership psychology. In the high-stakes arena of global diplomacy, this manifests as the debate over intuitive leadership in foreign policy—the practice of relying on “gut feeling” over the traditional, rigorous analysis provided by intelligence agencies and diplomatic corridors.
This dynamic was most visible during the volatile period of U.S.-Iran relations under the administration of Donald Trump. The intersection of social media immediacy and executive power created a precedent where public declarations often preceded official policy, challenging the conventional wisdom of how a superpower communicates its intentions to the world.
For those who prioritize stability and predictability, the reliance on instinct can appear reckless. However, for a segment of the electorate and political strategists, this “gut-driven” approach is viewed as a necessary disruption to a stagnant foreign policy establishment. The result is a fundamental shift in how geopolitical risk is assessed, moving away from predictable patterns toward a strategy of intentional unpredictability.
The Digital Pulse of Diplomacy
The transition of diplomatic communication from secure cables to public platforms like X (formerly Twitter) fundamentally altered the speed of international relations. When a leader bypasses the traditional vetting process of the State Department or the National Security Council, the “gut” becomes the primary driver of the narrative.
During the escalations with Iran, specifically surrounding the 2020 assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, the public nature of the administration’s communications served as a tool for psychological warfare. By utilizing threatening or vulgar language in social media posts, the administration sought to project strength and unpredictability, aiming to keep adversaries off-balance.
However, this approach creates a precarious environment for allies and markets. Financial markets typically thrive on certainty; when foreign policy is dictated by the immediate impulses of a leader, the volatility index often spikes. The “In Gut We Trust” philosophy replaces the institutional memory of the government with the individual intuition of the executive.
Analyzing the Instinctive Approach
To understand the impact of intuitive leadership, it is helpful to examine the divergence between traditional policy and a gut-based approach. Traditional policy relies on “The Interagency Process,” where various departments provide a consensus view before a decision is made. Intuitive leadership, by contrast, views this process as a filter that removes the boldness required for decisive action.
| Feature | Institutional Approach | Intuitive Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Decision Driver | Intelligence Consensus | Executive Instinct |
| Communication | Formal Diplomatic Channels | Direct Public Messaging |
| Goal | Stability & Predictability | Disruption & Leverage |
| Risk Profile | Aversion to Sudden Escalation | High-Risk, High-Reward |
The stakeholders affected by this shift include not only the diplomats in the room but likewise the global energy markets. Because Iran sits atop critical maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, a single “gut-driven” post can lead to immediate fluctuations in global oil prices, impacting inflation and economic stability worldwide.
The Psychology of Unpredictability
The strategy of unpredictability is not entirely latest, but its execution via social media is. By projecting an image of a leader who might act on impulse, the administration attempted to create a “madman theory” effect—convincing opponents that the cost of provocation is too high because the response will be irrational and overwhelming.
Critics argue that this approach erodes the credibility of the United States. When threats are issued vulgarly or impulsively, they may be dismissed as rhetoric rather than red lines. This creates a dangerous gap where a miscalculation by an adversary—believing a threat was merely a “gut” reaction—could lead to an actual kinetic conflict.
The Institutional Backlash
Within the U.S. Government, the reliance on intuition often led to friction between the White House and the career professionals at the U.S. Department of State. The tension centered on whether the “gut” was a legitimate tool for governance or a liability that undermined national security.
The primary concern for policy analysts is the lack of a “paper trail” for intuitive decisions. When a policy is derived from a sudden impulse or a social media reaction, the strategic logic is often opaque. This makes it difficult for the military and diplomatic corps to implement the vision effectively, as they are reacting to a moving target rather than a stable set of objectives.
Despite this, supporters argue that the institutional approach had failed for decades, leading to “forever wars” and stagnant diplomacy. They posit that the only way to achieve a breakthrough—such as the Abraham Accords—is to abandon the script and trust the instinct of a leader who is not beholden to the diplomatic status quo.
What This Means for Future Governance
The legacy of “In Gut We Trust” extends beyond a single administration. It has normalized the idea that a leader’s personal brand and immediate reactions are valid components of statecraft. This shift has influenced how subsequent leaders approach the balance between expert advice and personal intuition.
The broader implication is a move toward a more personalized form of power. When the “gut” is the primary source of truth, the role of the advisor shifts from providing strategic direction to managing the fallout of the leader’s instincts. This redefines the relationship between the executive branch and the administrative state.
For the global community, this means that the “rules of the road” are no longer fixed. International law and treaty obligations are viewed as suggestions rather than mandates, subordinate to the intuitive needs of the moment. This environment requires a new kind of diplomatic agility, where nations must prepare for sudden shifts in policy that lack a traditional lead-up or warning.
The ongoing evolution of this leadership style will be monitored through future executive orders and the continued use of direct-to-consumer communication platforms by heads of state. The next critical checkpoint for this trend will be the upcoming review of national security protocols regarding the use of personal devices and social media for official government business.
We invite you to share your thoughts on the balance between intuition and expertise in leadership in the comments below.
Related reading
